Dawkins and Tyson video

[Dexter]

If you have some time to kill, an interesting discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RExQFZzHXQ

I made some critical comments about Tyson -- I've found some of his talks to be too rambling and disorganized, he's made what I thought were some wishy-washy comments about religion. But that's because I have high standards if you're going to be considered (by yourself or others) a leading popularizer of science. I thought he was good here.

[ant]

If you have some time to kill, an interesting discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RExQFZzHXQ

I made some critical comments about Tyson -- I've found some of his talks to be too rambling and disorganized, he's made what I thought were some wishy-washy comments about religion. But that's because I have high standards if you're going to be considered (by yourself or others) a leading popularizer of science. I thought he was good here.

What does it mean to "popularize science"?
You mean, like, in a effort to raise consciousness and give meaning to life?

Would you like to do away with religion completely? What is your definition of religion? Let's see if you're even able to define it first.

[Dexter]

What does it mean to "popularize science"?
You mean, like, in a effort to raise consciousness and give meaning to life?

I mean what an ordinary person would mean, not your strawman about giving meaning to life. Telling people about science, and how it helps explain the world.

Would you like to do away with religion completely? What is your definition of religion? Let's see if you're even able to define it first.

I'm not interested in debating definitions of religion. I would like to do away with false beliefs, especially those with potential to do harm and make people's lives worse (see religious oppression around the world). Can those false beliefs also provide comfort and happiness to people? Sure. As does belief in Santa Claus. If those beliefs are not harming others, then by all means, keep believing. But I still think people should try to educate others about what is known about the world, and what claims have zero evidence.

[ant]

Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.

Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!

[ant]

I think the strawman atheists love to beat up "religion attempts to explain natural phenomena" is dull and empty.
Also, it's convenient of atheists to generalize without shame that religion is synonymous with magic.
That is an ignorant attempt at a constructive discussion.

[Dexter]

Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.

Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!

I think the strawman atheists love to beat up "religion attempts to explain natural phenomena" is dull and empty.
Also, it's convenient of atheists to generalize without shame that religion is synonymous with magic.
That is an ignorant attempt at a constructive discussion.

I bolded the strawman arguments for you. Nice try.

But yes, religion makes claims with no evidence. Unlike science, there is no corrective process.

[ant]

Yes! Everything is corrected by science!
Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true?
How did conciousness rise from evolutionary processes?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What banged during the the big bang?

It doesn't matter! Because in another universe everything true here is false over there!
Conciousness succeeded here but not over there!
There is no purpose or reason! The evidence will be in! You wait and see. Us scientists will be proven right!

[Interbane]

That's enough trolling ant.

[ant]

That's enough trolling ant.

Oh sure. Now I'm trolling.
It doesn't matter if the general population here dishes out their brand of sarcasm
And it's okay to be told I don't diserve "a pass."

Pretty fair environment here.
You need to take a good long look at all this before pass judgement.
I've asked reasonable questions in other posts that were complete ignored
Wha a Cop-out.

I dont care. It's predictable to be banned with prejudice from an echo chamber

[Robert Tulip]

Oh I get it. You're interested in doing away with theories of an intellegent designer because its unscientific to think such thoughts without evidence, but it's not unscientific to consider the possibility of a Megaverse because the evidence is in the bank for that one regardless of our inability to apply our powers of observation.

Okay! You've convinced us all with your intellectual consistency!

Ant, I thought this was a trolling comment by you before I read the moderator's warning.

The difference here between ID and multiverse theory is about agenda. Intelligent design aims to fraudulently promote creationist ideas as a confusing cover for traditional belief in a false supernatural Christian myth. As such, ID fails the first hurdle of scientific method, the Ockham's Razor principle that we should not postulate unnecessary entities. ID fails the test, because evolution shows that a designer is an unnecessary entity. Design is inherent to nature, and requires no external entity to make complete sense.

The megaverse may be idle speculation, but at least it is compatible with the process of causality observed by science. There is no evidence for a megaverse and no one says there is, as far as I am aware. All they say is that it is possible, unlike ID. You should watch out for exaggerated lies like "evidence is in the bank".